Comm2A Wins on Suitability Against Wakefield

[Mesatchornug]

Nope still works. View attachment 244056 I just looked.

Smile is not the same thing.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I got denied LTC in Wakefield for a BCD that happened 20 years ago (refusing the dangerous anthrax vaccine). I had to settle for a FID

If you would consider reapplying, please contact Comm2A before doing so. This sounds like a great case to test the precedent of using the new "danger to public safety" standard as opposed to the "any reason as long as the issuing authority believes it to be valid". If you go this route, the time for attorney involvement is prior to filing the initial application.

I am not sure exactly what a BCD is ... if it is a dishonorable discharge, as opposed to a general discharge, that makes you a federal PP as a dishonorable is considered the equivalent of a felony.

 

[nstassel]

The guy applied for the Canadian pardon which triggered a call from Canada's parole board to his local police to see if he was behaving after moving to Wakefield.

 

[308rifleman]

If you would consider reapplying, please contact Comm2A before doing so. This sounds like a great case to test the precedent of using the new "danger to public safety" standard as opposed to the "any reason as long as the issuing authority believes it to be valid". If you go this route, the time for attorney involvement is prior to filing the initial application.

I am not sure exactly what a BCD is ... if it is a dishonorable discharge, as opposed to a general discharge, that makes you a federal PP as a dishonorable is considered the equivalent of a felony.

No, not a PP. Problem with BCD is it looks worse on paper than it really is. I was able to buy my rifles and shotguns no problem. If I choose to reapply and get the Comm2A folks involved it is imperative that it does not end up in the newspapers or on social media. By some miracle, I passed a background check and was able to obtain my present well paid plus bennies position in a company that has government contracts. I did not disclose my BCD when I applied. If this ends up in a pissing contest in court and any of my nosy co-workers find out, I will be ratted out immediately to HR. I will lose my good job. Wife and kids lose their insurance. Not worth it to me.

 

[42!]

No, not a PP. Problem with BCD is it looks worse on paper than it really is. I was able to buy my rifles and shotguns no problem. If I choose to reapply and get the Comm2A folks involved it is imperative that it does not end up in the newspapers or on social media. By some miracle, I passed a background check and was able to obtain my present well paid plus bennies position in a company that has government contracts. I did not disclose my BCD when I applied. If this ends up in a pissing contest in court and any of my nosy co-workers find out, I will be ratted out immediately to HR. I will lose my good job. Wife and kids lose their insurance. Not worth it to me.

What I think is interesting is that the standard for suitability is the same for an LTC and an FID. It would be hard for them to argue that you are a risk to public safety for one and not the other. Unless there was a specific incident with a handgun.

I get your concern about public exposure, and I believe it's a significant reason many who are denied, or don't apply, don't take action. I was at a job where this would not have gone over well. They were probably too Liberal to fire me over it, but you can bet I'd have no future there and I'd never see a raise again. But at some point you have to say "enough". This ruling has me rethinking my move to NH. The pay cut and impact on my career that the move had is having a bigger impact that I expected. Comm2a is aware of my situation and I'd love to hear what they think.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Comm2A can handle some cases in confidence - we do not brag about every win. The "catch" is you have to let the attorney we pay for discuss your case with us. What we cannot control is what cases the local fishwrappers cover or what they include.

 

[Boston4567]

A very strong ruling. This is, I think, also really important:

 

[TayNinh_66]

I got denied LTC in Wakefield for a BCD that happened 20 years ago (refusing the dangerous anthrax vaccine). I had to settle for a FID.

A BCD is not a dishonorable discharge and you are not a federal prohibited person. If WPD denied you now, they would have to prove you are unsafe.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This is, I think, also really important:

That aspect of the ruling is specific to persons with foreign convictions not disclosing them.

What is far more important is the recognition that applying the old "any reason" standard rather than "threat to public safety" was an error of law on the part of the district court. If this "sticks" it is going to be a game changer.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

What is a BCD?

 

[eisenhow]

What is a BCD?

Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD)

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD)

Thanks

 

[Waher]

That aspect of the ruling is specific to persons with foreign convictions not disclosing them.

What is far more important is the recognition that applying the old "any reason" standard rather than "threat to public safety" was an error of law on the part of the district court. If this "sticks" it is going to be a game changer.

Couldn't this also be potentially a chip at non-statutory requirements? No membership in a gun club (Brookline's B.S.) and the like couldn't be used as a reason for denial.

 

[42!]

Couldn't this also be potentially a chip at non-statutory requirements? No membership in a gun club (Brookline's B.S.) and the like couldn't be used as a reason for denial.

In my opinion, and I am not a lawyer.
Suitability has always been the hammer they hold over everyone. When they can deny for any reason, you have a simple choice, comply or be denied. Obviously refusing the additional requirements will get you a suitability denial if the standard is "broad discretion" and nothing more.
I would think this ruling would help since it establishes that the standard is "risk to public safety", and there is no way they would be able to connect a club membership (there are plenty of pay ranges to practice at), or refusing to write a story about how you deserve the license, to a risk to the public. But be sure you want the fight, it's your time and money.
And this is why most people go along with the extra requirements. They are usually a PTA and a waste of time, but not much more. So people comply because it's easier. Unfortunately, the easy path often leads to greater oppression.

If you really want to stand up to this, simple don't give them any references. The two references on the form are "optional". There is nothing in the law that requires them. Now you all have a chance to stand up, regardless of whether your CoP is adding any other requirements. It's called civil disobedience, you're not actually breaking the law, but you will certainly piss them off.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Couldn't this also be potentially a chip at non-statutory requirements? No membership in a gun club (Brookline's B.S.) and the like couldn't be used as a reason for denial.

Absolutely, but we need to choose cases and plaintiffs carefully or we will get a "cuz guns" reversal. Gonna be a fun ride.

 

[42!]

Absolutely, but we need to choose cases and plaintiffs carefully or we will get a "cuz guns" reversal. Gonna be a fun ride.

Let's be honest, they have probably already drafted the change to MGL that will again let the CoP/LO do whatever they want.

 

[308rifleman]

Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD)

And I did not disclose it when I applied for the position that I currently hold. I am surrounded by liberals in the Boston office where I work. Company has government contracts now but I went through a civilian non fingerprint background check years before. If my LTC battle makes the news or social media and my BCD is exposed, then my sweet home Alabama southern butt is cooked. I would be ratted out and fired. My wife and kids would lose their insurance and financial future. My parents did not raise a fool. Like I said, not worth it to me if anonyminity cannot be guaranteed in Comm2A proceedings.

Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD)

 

[Rob Boudrie]

anonyminity cannot be guaranteed in Comm2A proceedings.

All Comm2A could guarantee is that none of our staff would leak any information.

We have had several cases in where the press picked up on the case and reported it, including plaintiff's names. This is completely outside our control, and one of the things anyone bringing a case in MA has to accept as a risk.

If the press becomes cognizant as to the import of Wakefield, I expect it will show up in the press. Routine LTC appeals cases generally are not press worthy.

 

[42!]

And I did not disclose it when I applied for the position that I currently hold. I am surrounded by liberals in the Boston office where I work. Company has government contracts now but I went through a civilian non fingerprint background check years before. If my LTC battle makes the news or social media and my BCD is exposed, then my sweet home Alabama southern butt is cooked. I would be ratted out and fired. My wife and kids would lose their insurance and financial future. My parents did not raise a fool. Like I said, not worth it to me if anonyminity cannot be guaranteed in Comm2A proceedings.

IANAL but I doubt a judge in MA is going to agree to keep your identity secret. Your information is confidential when you apply for an LTC but if you are denied and appeal, the appeal is public record. This much I know for certain.

The sad truth in MA is that most employers would can your [email protected]@ if you brought this kind of attention to the company. Of course the official reason for your firing would be something like "your services are no longer needed". And you have to look out for you and yours first, you concern about your family shows you've got your head in the right place.

 

[rwl1955]

Nice

 

[nstassel]

I am thinking of filing a motion to proceed by pseudonym in the appropriate case. The grounds are that license applications are exempt by statute from public records law. I think that may justify keeping an applicant's name out of the case.

 

[crispnipz]

the LO must put into writing why an individual had restrictions placed on their LTC.

In Medford they teeter back and forth between saying "it's because it's your first time" and "it's because of your [young] age." They told me I was too young for unrestricted. I'm 25. At least I can rent a car without being charged extra

I would like to chime in and say thanks to Comm2A and everyone who fights for all of us getting closer to what 2A really is!

 

[Len-2A Training]

I am thinking of filing a motion to proceed by pseudonym in the appropriate case. The grounds are that license applications are exempt by statute from public records law. I think that may justify keeping an applicant's name out of the case.

Do you think that a judge will actually go by MGL (C. 66 S. 10d)? or because gunz . . .

 

[nstassel]

Do you think that a judge will actually go by MGL (C. 66 S. 10d)? or because gunz . . .

I can only say that there's a good argument there. A person shouldn't have to out himself as an ltc applicant just because he wants to take an appeal from a denial. It would chill the right of appeal for some.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I can only say that there's a good argument there. A person shouldn't have to out himself as an ltc applicant just because he wants to take an appeal from a denial. It would chill the right of appeal for some.

I agree that it certainly does!

 

[ToddDubya]

OK, Amazon donations aren't nearly enough. I should have done it awhile ago, but I finally signed up for a recurring monthly donation. These guys are better than the NRA and GOAL combined!

I went the Ron Popeil set-it-and-forget-it route a few years ago. I've been impressed with their wins, and most (if not all) of the losses seem to come from judges who don't care about the law.

Good job, guys.

ETA: Add in that they're stepping up to help ranges deal with small town BS and Comm2A is really doing some good stuff.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Do you think that a judge will actually go by MGL (C. 66 S. 10d)? or because gunz . . .

Well Len, we didn't think that a district court judge was going to side with a pro se applicant arguing that US v Small means that a foreign felony was not a disqualifying offense and didn't have to be disclosed on the application. But one did.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Well Len, we didn't think that a district court judge was going to side with a pro se applicant arguing that US v Small means that a foreign felony was not a disqualifying offense and didn't have to be disclosed on the application. But one did.

Yup. And even a blind squirrel finds a nut on rare occasion.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Well Len, we didn't think that a district court judge was going to side with a pro se applicant arguing that US v Small means that a foreign felony was not a disqualifying offense and didn't have to be disclosed on the application. But one did.

It is quite possible that the court felt it could do this only because it was one of two basic issues (Canadian Conviction and use for suitability) and it could still find against the individual on his license appeal.

 

[42!]

I can only say that there's a good argument there. A person shouldn't have to out himself as an ltc applicant just because he wants to take an appeal from a denial. It would chill the right of appeal for some.

I've seen you win when you had a bad argument (just my opinion) so I wouldn't count you out when you have a good one like this. Can hardly wait for the win.